MHB Cardinality of a infinite subset

lamsung
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I saw the below statement which is intuitively correct:

If a set has cardinality m then none of its subsets has cardinality greater than m.

Is it necessarily true for a infinite set case?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lamsung said:
If a set has cardinality m then none of its subsets has cardinality greater than m.

Is it necessarily true for a infinite set case?
Of course. If a subset $B$ of $A$ has cardinality strictly greater than the cardinality of $A$ itself, then there is an injection from $A$ to $B$, but not from $B$ to $A$, by the Cantor–Bernstein–Schroeder theorem. For an infinite setm, it is possible to have an injection into a proper subset, but there is also a trivial injection (inclusion) from a subset to the whole set.

If you need more details, tell us what $m$ is here and what is the definition in your context of having cardinality $m$ or greater than $m$.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Back
Top